Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference -- 6 Feb 2006

<bob> zakim ipcaller is blin

<Katy> mute Katy

<bob> Scribe: Gil

Bob: agenda bashing
... F2F planning around Cannes

<anish> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Feb/0021.html

<bob> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/6/01/30-ws-addr-minutes.html>

review and accept last minutes (no objections)

Review action items <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/admin#actionitems>

Johnathan: would like to keep "2005-11-28: i059" open

Proposed and New Issues

Mark Hadley raised a concern with side effects of resoulution to cr17

Mark is not on the call

Anish: wonders if David Orchard will be presenting a re-worded issue?

Bob: I haven't seen the revised proposal. I will contact David about that.

<bob> ack anish

<bob> q?

<bob> ok

<bob> ack trutt

<bob> q?

<agupta> I see it correctly though

All: Agreed that we should defer this discussion until Marc is on the call.

does Marc's issue impact our ability to take the WSDL Binding document to last call?

Katy, Umit, and Jonathan speak in favor of taking WSDL Binding doc to last call

<anish> +1 to getting to LC quickly

Tom doesn't mind going to LC if this issue doesn't effect markup

RESOLUTION: take the WSDL Binding document to LC

cr18

<anish> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/#cr18

<anish> we have 2 proposed resolutions: one from DavidH and one from Paco

<bob> d hull's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Feb/0024.html

<bob> Paco's proposals: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Feb/0025.html

<anish> so, immediatedestination talks about the next hop, whereas wsa:To talks about the 'final destination'

<anish> if this is correct, then saying that anon means immediatedestination would not be right.

<anish> david, I *think* i understand what you mean (about anon and multi-hop)

<anish> since anon is defined by the binding, and bindings address MEPs which define what immediatedestination is, we are ok

<anish> is that roughly right

<Zakim> dhull, you wanted to say that anonymous won't work for multi-hop

<pauld> i made the point that option#3 clarifies the status quo, adding semantics to an anonymous To will impact at least one implementation good enough to participate in CR testing and would therefore be a "substantive change"

<Zakim> anish, you wanted to see if there was any support to make [destination] optional

<GlenD> +1 to making it optional

<dhull> FWIW: Option 4 is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Feb/0026.html, option 4' is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Feb/0028.html

<Jonathan> -1

<GlenD> Destination is tricky, because that gets into dispatch ideas. Don't make assumptions.

<GlenD> i.e some bindings/implementations don't need a WSAddressing [destination] property, just done by the transport

<uyalcina> my concern is if it is not mandatory, we would have to define when we need it. I have a problem with that.

<uyalcina> I hate contextual semantics.

<GlenD> Why would you need to define when you need it? You have an EPR, either from a WSDL or from another message. If that EPR tells you to put in a <to>, you do it. If not, don't.

<GlenD> If the <soap:address> is sufficient, then you don't need <wsa:To>, right?

<vikas> anonymous destination could mean "Hey DNS find me the nearest Gateway"

<anish> another discomfort I have is that we define the default in the core (which is anon) and don't say what it means

<GlenD> ah, I guess there's always an <Address> in an EPR, eh?

<dhull> +1 to discomfort over undefined defaults

<bob> 4' http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Feb/0028.html

<dhull> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Feb/0026.html

<bob> opt 3. Middle of the road approach: retain the defaulting of the To header to

<bob> > anonymous, but re-state that its use is actually dependent on the

<bob> > interpretation that the transport binding gives to the anonymous URI. Add a

<bob> > note indicating that for the SOAP/HTTP case the anonymous URI is only used

<bob> > to indicate the use of the HTTP back channel so it can only be used in

<bob> > reply messages.

<pauld> chad, question approaches for finality of this issue

<pauld> chad, question: options for CR18

<pauld> chad, question: options for CR18 and CR20

<pauld> chad, option 1: option 1

<pauld> chad, option 2: option 2

<pauld> chad, option 3: option 3

<Jonathan> chad, option 3: Paco's option 3:

<anish> option 4': make [destination] optional and remove defaulting to anon

<Jonathan> chad, option 3': Paco's option 3 but limited to SOAP 1.1

<TonyR> chad, list options

<dhull> option 4: use ImmediateDestination where defined (request at the least), InboundMessage for response. Special case SOAP1.1/HTTP as per Paco's 3.

<bob> opt 3: Middle of the road approach: retain the defaulting of the To header to

<bob> > anonymous, but re-state that its use is actually dependent on the

<bob> > interpretation that the transport binding gives to the anonymous URI. Add a

<bob> > note indicating that for the SOAP/HTTP case the anonymous URI is only used

<bob> > to indicate the use of the HTTP back channel so it can only be used in

<bob> > reply messages.

<Jonathan> chad, option 3: Paco's option 3:

<Jonathan> chad option 3a: Paco's option 3 but for SOAP 1.1 only.

<Jonathan> chad, option 3a: Paco's option 3 but for SOAP 1.1 only.

<pauld> chad, options?

<Jonathan> chad, drop option 1

<Jonathan> chad, drop option 2

<dhull> chad, options?

<Jonathan> chad, option 4a: make [destionation] optional and remove defaulting to anon

<Jonathan> chad, option 4: DaveH's

<Jonathan> chad, option 4: Use SOAP 1.2 ImmediateDestination property

<Jonathan> chad, options?

<anish> chad, list options

<dhull> "use SOAP f&p"

<dhull> chad, options?

<pauld> vote: 3

<GlenD> vote: 4a, 4, 3a

<dhull> vote: 4

<uyalcina> vote: 3

<Jonathan> vote: 3

<David_Illsley> vote: 3

<Paco> vote: 3

<vikas> vote: 4

<anish> vote: 4a

<TRutt> vote: 3, 4a

vote: 4a, 4, 3a

<Katy> vote: 3

<bob> vote 3

<TonyR> vote: 4a, 3

<dhull> vote: 4, 3a

<agupta> vote: 4a

<Nilo> 4a, 3a, 3

<hugo> vote: 4, 4a, 3, 3a

<PaulKnight> 3, 4a

<PaulKnight> vote: 3. 4a

<PaulKnight> vote: 3,4a

<pauld> chad, count

<chad> Question: options for CR18 and CR20

<chad> Option 3: Paco's option 3: (8)

<chad> Option 3a: Paco's option 3 but for SOAP 1.1 only. (0)

<chad> Option 4: Use SOAP 1.2 ImmediateDestination property (3)

<chad> Option 4a: make [destionation] optional and remove defaulting to anon (5)

<chad> 16 voters: agupta (4a) , anish (4a) , David_Illsley (3) , dhull (4, 3a) , Gil (4a, 4, 3a) , GlenD (4a, 4, 3a) , hugo (4, 4a, 3, 3a) , Jonathan (3) , Katy (3) , Paco (3) , pauld (3) , PaulKnight (3, 4a) , TonyR (4a, 3) , TRutt (3, 4a) , uyalcina (3) , vikas (4)

<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.

<chad> Round 2: First elimination round.

<chad> Eliminating candidadates without any votes.

<Nilo> 4a, 3a, 3

<chad> Eliminating candidate 3a.

<chad> Round 3: Eliminating candidate 4.

<chad> Round 4: Eliminating candidate 4a.

<chad> Candidate 3 is elected.

<chad> Winner is option 3 - Paco's option 3:

<Nilo> vote: 4a, 3a, 3

<anish> vote: nilo: 4a, 3a, 3

<pauld> chad, count

<chad> Question: options for CR18 and CR20

<chad> Option 3: Paco's option 3: (8)

<chad> Option 3a: Paco's option 3 but for SOAP 1.1 only. (0)

<chad> Option 4: Use SOAP 1.2 ImmediateDestination property (3)

<chad> Option 4a: make [destionation] optional and remove defaulting to anon (7)

<chad> 18 voters: agupta (4a) , anish (4a) , David_Illsley (3) , dhull (4, 3a) , Gil (4a, 4, 3a) , GlenD (4a, 4, 3a) , hugo (4, 4a, 3, 3a) , Jonathan (3) , Katy (3) , Nilo (4a, 3a, 3) , nilo (4a, 3a, 3) , Paco (3) , pauld (3) , PaulKnight (3, 4a) , TonyR (4a, 3) , TRutt (3, 4a) , uyalcina (3) , vikas (4)

<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.

<chad> Round 2: First elimination round.

<chad> Eliminating candidadates without any votes.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 3a.

<chad> Round 3: Eliminating candidate 4.

<chad> Round 4: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.

<chad> Tie at round 3 between 3, 4a.

<chad> Candidate 4a has the fewest votes at round 2.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 4a.

<chad> Candidate 3 is elected.

<chad> Winner is option 3 - Paco's option 3:

<anish> chad, details?

<pauld> vote: Nilo: abstain

<uyalcina> +1 to JM

<pauld> want's to clarify, there are no longer any anonymous, or missing To's in the test suite

<GlenD> I think 4a solves the problem in a better way, and I'd prefer that <To> still be allowed to be missing. Not all implementations need deal with that, of course.

<GlenD> We don't actually have to say what anonymous means in <To> at all, just like we don't say what foo:something/or/other means as a <To>

<uyalcina> i disagree Glen. With 4a, you still need to allow/disallow wsa:To anonymous for a request message for SOAP/HTTP

<GlenD> Why?

<uyalcina> you have not solved the problem at all with 4a

<GlenD> Anonymous has special meaning for a response EPR (ReplyTo, FaultTo). Outside that context, we don't have to say anything, just like we don't say anything in particular about OTHER URIs.

<GlenD> i.e. if your implementation asks for a <To> with a particular URI, it's up to you to understand it.

<uyalcina> i am sorry, undefined stuff do not do it for me. The reason we have cr18 is because we have an undefined situation

<scribe> ACTION: Anish to put 4a into "crisp text" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]

<TRutt> yes

Bob: intent is to clarify differences between 3 and 4a and vote next week

<pauld> dispatching can happen on whatever you want

<TRutt> Some implementations do not make the http post url available at the soap level

<pauld> action, GED, if it's raining, which advert you prefered in the superbowl .. whatever

<GlenD> +1 pauld

administrivia - next F2F after Cannes

<anish> i agree too that dispatching can happen on whatever you want

Bob: last week in April or first week in May

Tom Rutt: would prefer first week in May

jinx

<anish> oasis symp. is in San Fran

ADJOURN

- DRAFT -

Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference

6 Feb 2006

Attendees

Contents